Many Senate Republicans have gone off the idea of presidential censure, raising the distinct possibility that President Clinton could avoid any direct punishment or reprimand if he prevails in his impeachment trial, which began yesterday.
Just a few weeks ago, Senate Republicans and Democrats and White House officials were seriously exploring options for punishing Mr Clinton short of removal from office. But with the Senate now engaged in a full impeachment trial against strong Democratic opposition, the air has gone out of the censure drive.
While most Democrats argue that a tough censure resolution - possibly including financial sanctions - would be the most appropriate response to the President's misconduct, many Republicans said in interviews this week they believe censure is unconstitutional and a dangerous precedent that could be used against future presidents. Moreover, many Republicans said that regardless of the outcome of the trial, they would continue to oppose censure.
"Even if the President were to be acquitted, I wouldn't support a censure resolution, because I think it's unconstitutional," said Senator Robert Smith of New Hampshire, one of the President's severest critics in the Senate.
Senator Robert Bennett of Utah, one of the few Republicans to openly embrace censure as a fallback, said he worries that Mr Clinton might otherwise escape any form of punishment. While some Republicans argue that the House impeachment vote itself is far more damning than any censure resolution, Mr Bennett doesn't agree.
If Mr Clinton is acquitted, Mr Bennett said, "the spinmasters at the White House would then attempt to tell us that this President has been vindicated."
The mounting Senate opposition to censure echoes sentiments in the House, where Republican leaders last month denied the Democrats a floor vote on a censure resolution. The House voted on December 19th to approve two articles of impeachment, charging Mr Clinton with lying under oath about his sexual relationship with the former White House intern Ms Monica Lewinsky and obstructing justice.
In a speech on Wednesday, the Judiciary Committee Chairman, Mr Henry Hyde, reiterated his view that censure involves constitutional problems. "The Constitution provides one way to deal with a problem concerning cleansing the office, and that is impeachment," Mr Hyde said.
Sources close to Mr Clinton's defence agree that the momentum for censure has slowed palpably in recent days. But some White House officials caution that the eclipse may be temporary, the result of being overshadowed by the larger question of how the Senate trial will proceed.
The Senate, unlike the House, does not have a significant faction of liberals who will reject censure as undeserved punishment. And conservative Republicans who question whether censure is constitutional might soften their stand if they view it as the only way of going on record as condemning Mr Clinton's conduct.
The official White House line is that censure would be a good thing - a way of bringing closure to a year of controversy and a way of officially recognising the inappropriate conduct that Mr Clinton has already acknowledged.
But White House aides have also emphasised repeatedly that Mr Clinton's willingness to accept censure does not mean he will admit lying under oath - a condition that many censure proponents have suggested. And some Clinton loyalists say the idea that Mr Clinton might avoid conviction as well as censure is an appealing prospect.
One White House aide said Mr Clinton's ability to affect the censure debate is strictly limited. "It's up to Congress to decide what they believe," said one senior White House official.
Anyone hoping to catch a bit of history as the Senate begins President Clinton's impeachment trial had best get up early.
Fifty seats in the 596-seat Senate chamber are reserved for the public. They will be handed out one hour before each day's proceedings on a first-come, first-served basis through the regular Capitol tour entrances.